D&D Movie/TV D&D Movie Hit or Flop?

[LordEntrails]

I'm pretty sure the default stance of a corporation when they do something is to make profit.

So I would go the other way, until I hear a corporation went with a "loss leader" strategy for something, my default assumption is their goal was to make money.

Everyone here is talking about short term profits, not long term BRAND profits.

Hasbro has stated that this is about building a brand and a movie franchise. That means they are more concerned with the profits of the next 10 movies (and TV shows, and merchandising) than they are about this one (HAT).

well, if you think that any company spends money that they do not see a return on, in whatever form, then I cannot help you

Every day my wife spends money for companies that do not see a direct return on the money she spends. It's called branding. It's not about turning a profit on the current product (if there even is one, many times its simple corporate branding for name recognition with no product being sold). It's about building a brand so your next product (or the one after that) turn a profit and makes up for your branding investment.

Its about when they expect to see a ROI. You all seem stuck on evaluating if this movie is a success or not based upon short term profitability of the movie itself. Not on the long term profitability of the brand (D&D).

Examples: Nike's "Seen it All" brand campaign this year. They are not selling a shoe, not directly, they are selling their brand, their "lifestyle". Or DDB New Zealand. Or the ones Dove runs periodically about authenticity and the female body.

the case that was described had the money wasted, basically the scenario was 'WotC already earns 200M with D&D, they can afford to spend 100M without making it back in ticket sales or growing the game'

Yea, that argument made no sense to me and was not what I thought I was commenting on/supporting. Mea Culpa.

If WotC gets enough long term marketing benefit / growth from HAT, then we are back to the movie recouping its cost (see the first sentence of mine you quoted, where you even cut off that part from the post...), but right now that is a big if.

This all comes down to how you do your accounting. If HAT total cost is $250mil but through it's life only brings in $200 mil, BUT increases the brand so much that 1 million more players start buying books, and the next movie makes a @200 mil profit and the TV show makes a profit, and the branded merchandise sells more...

HAT will not be credited with turning a profit, even though it helped increase profits of the Brand. But, it will have been a significant factor and investment in the brands future.

None of my posts disagree with that. When I write that Hasbro wants to make a profit on the movie, this is not limited to ticket sales, it also includes merchandising sales and marketing.

Branding is different than marketing.

Branding is all about market recognition so the next time you sell a product, you sell more of it. It's about investing in your future, not making money on your current product.

In this case, it's so that the next 10 movies they make will be financial successes. Not so that HAT ever breaks even or makes money on its own.

Even then it is a lot of money. No one is spending that without expecting to receive more back.

You're wrong, at least in the short term and in the way profitability in this thread is being discussed. I know it doesn't make sense. at first blush, but many companies step back and think long term. (And, many don't.) They aren't worried about what product A sells, they worry about what product A says about their brand. What it's impacts to product B, C, D... means.

Yes long term they have to make money. But not in the near term or even on a single product. Weren't you the one who mentioned "loss leaders"? i.e. I'm going to sell this product at a loss so I can sell these ten other products for a bigger profit?

 

[Zardnaar]

Everyone here is talking about short term profits, not long term BRAND profits.

Hasbro has stated that this is about building a brand and a movie franchise. That means they are more concerned with the profits of the next 10 movies (and TV shows, and merchandising) than they are about this one (HAT).

Every day my wife spends money for companies that do not see a direct return on the money she spends. It's called branding. It's not about turning a profit on the current product (if there even is one, many times its simple corporate branding for name recognition with no product being sold). It's about building a brand so your next product (or the one after that) turn a profit and makes up for your branding investment.

Its about when they expect to see a ROI. You all seem stuck on evaluating if this movie is a success or not based upon short term profitability of the movie itself. Not on the long term profitability of the brand (D&D).

Examples: Nike's "Seen it All" brand campaign this year. They are not selling a shoe, not directly, they are selling their brand, their "lifestyle". Or DDB New Zealand. Or the ones Dove runs periodically about authenticity and the female body.

Yea, that argument made no sense to me and was not what I thought I was commenting on/supporting. Mea Culpa.

This all comes down to how you do your accounting. If HAT total cost is $250mil but through it's life only brings in $200 mil, BUT increases the brand so much that 1 million more players start buying books, and the next movie makes a @200 mil profit and the TV show makes a profit, and the branded merchandise sells more...

HAT will not be credited with turning a profit, even though it helped increase profits of the Brand. But, it will have been a significant factor and investment in the brands future.

Branding is different than marketing.

Branding is all about market recognition so the next time you sell a product, you sell more of it. It's about investing in your future, not making money on your current product.

In this case, it's so that the next 10 movies they make will be financial successes. Not so that HAT ever breaks even or makes money on its own.

You're wrong, at least in the short term and in the way profitability in this thread is being discussed. I know it doesn't make sense. at first blush, but many companies step back and think long term. (And, many don't.) They aren't worried about what product A sells, they worry about what product A says about their brand. What it's impacts to product B, C, D... means.

Yes long term they have to make money. But not in the near term or even on a single product. Weren't you the one who mentioned "loss leaders"? i.e. I'm going to sell this product at a loss so I can sell these ten other products for a bigger profit?

Pure Speculation though. HAT crashing and burning makes it unlikely there will be any more movies or TV shows in the future.

If you're a Hollywood studio why would you invest tens of millions of dollars in a weak IP?

 

[bedir than]

HAT crashing and burning

There's absolutely no evidence that it crashed and burned -- not in the box office, and not as a modern movie.

This hyperbole is absurd

 

[LordEntrails]

Pure Speculation though. HAT crashing and burning makes it unlikely there will be any more movies or TV shows in the future.

If you're a Hollywood studio why would you invest tens of millions of dollars in a weak IP?

Hey, you do you.

p.s. May I politely suggest you do spell checking before posting. This post of yours is great. But many of yours are so off that I can't make sense of what you are saying. Maybe I'm just less (whatever) than everyone else here. But if you are going to spend the time to reply, please try to see that we can understand what you are saying. Thanks

 

[mamba]

Everyone here is talking about short term profits, not long term BRAND profits.

I include that in my consideration, but it is obviously impossible to measure at this time and we will never know, so I see this mostly as an excuse by those that do not want to accept that the movie did not make money. Maybe the brand benefits enough from this, but that seems pretty unlikely given the gap it needs to fill.

Hasbro has stated that this is about building a brand and a movie franchise. That means they are more concerned with the profits of the next 10 movies (and TV shows, and merchandising) than they are about this one (HAT).

convenient, so unless the whole WotC CU fails, HAT can be declared a success, even if it left a 100M hole.

Every day my wife spends money for companies that do not see a direct return on the money she spends. It's called branding. It's not about turning a profit on the current product (if there even is one, many times its simple corporate branding for name recognition with no product being sold). It's about building a brand so your next product (or the one after that) turn a profit and makes up for your branding investment.

I understand that, I don't think HAT is building them 100M worth of brand value however. Let's see what the numbers for the second quarter are, and then we talk. If we see no progress there, then I doubt HAT will show one 5 years down the line either.

Its about when they expect to see a ROI. You all seem stuck on evaluating if this movie is a success or not based upon short term profitability of the movie itself. Not on the long term profitability of the brand (D&D).

no, it's more that we do not have the long term numbers, and that we likely will never know. I am saying it is unlikely that it fills the remaining hole for a reason, and that is that I am considering the long tail.

Examples: Nike's "Seen it All" brand campaign this year. They are not selling a shoe, not directly, they are selling their brand, their "lifestyle". Or DDB New Zealand. Or the ones Dove runs periodically about authenticity and the female body.

yes, same as HAT, not promoting a single product. I am sure Nike has some idea of whether their campaign was successful though, same for Dove or WotC. The problem is we will never know, so you cannot really use this as your 'see, this is how HAT made money' proof.

This all comes down to how you do your accounting. If HAT total cost is $250mil but through it's life only brings in $200 mil, BUT increases the brand so much that 1 million more players start buying books, and the next movie makes a @200 mil profit and the TV show makes a profit, and the branded merchandise sells more...

agreed, that was my 'big if'

HAT will not be credited with turning a profit, even though it helped increase profits of the Brand. But, it will have been a significant factor and investment in the brands future.

By whom, us or Hasbro? I agree that we will not know, I would assume that Hasbro will have a pretty good idea.

Either way, if we do not know, we cannot actually claim that it turned a profit because of this. We can at most speculate.

Branding is different than marketing.

Branding is all about market recognition so the next time you sell a product, you sell more of it. It's about investing in your future, not making money on your current product.

yes, but just like marketing, it has to pay for itself in increased sales

You're wrong, at least in the short term and in the way profitability in this thread is being discussed.

I am not wrong, you also explain how it is supposed to make money in the long run..

I know it doesn't make sense. at first blush, but many companies step back and think long term.

you do not have to explain this to me, I understand the concept. My 'problem' with this is that 1) it is much too early to tell based on this (which I pretty much acknowledge in every post), 2) we will never actually know either way, so 3) anyone who claims that HAT is making its money back this way has no leg to stand on.

This is what I am refuting, the claim that 'HAT is a success, if only you consider everything'. You do not know that, this is at best speculation and at worst just wishful thinking.

I am fully aware that it could make the 100M gap up, I do not think it is likely, but I concede that I will not know whether it will / did and likely never will. That is far different from claiming that this is how it will do so.

Weren't you the one who mentioned "loss leaders"? i.e. I'm going to sell this product at a loss so I can sell these ten other products for a bigger profit?

no, I don't think I did. I also don't think HAT was supposed to be a loss leader. Do you think so?

 

[Mistwell]

That was probably me.

No it was from Twitter and I am 99% sure I don't follow you there. Though I leave open 1% possibility I do and didn't know it

 

[Zardnaar]

No it was from Twitter and I am 99% sure I don't follow you there. Though I leave open 1% possibility I do and didn't know it

I don’t use twitter.

But I did mention 80's inflation adjusted numbers. Maybe not in this thread though idk.

 

[Hussar]

Pure Speculation though. HAT crashing and burning makes it unlikely there will be any more movies or TV shows in the future.

If you're a Hollywood studio why would you invest tens of millions of dollars in a weak IP?

I thought a while ago, you said it was a flop, but, not a bomb.

Are you revising that now? Or is "crash and burn" just a flop and not a bomb?

 

[Zardnaar]

I thought a while ago, you said it was a flop, but, not a bomb.

Are you revising that now? Or is "crash and burn" just a flop and not a bomb?

Just a flop.

A bomb to me is something like latest indy movie maybe Fast X.

Few movies lately.

Fast X bomb

The Little Mermaid. Underperformed

Transformers Rise of Beasts flop

Spiderman hit

The Flash bomb

Elementals bomb

Indianana Jones probably a bomb.

It's plausible HAT makes money it flopped at the box office.

There's no scientific divide but losing mire than 50-100+million is a bomb IMHO.

 

[MwaO]

Says who? Losing money is certainly not an objective. But Hasbro made this movie with the stated goals of building a brand and hopefully a movie franchise. Spending $100million to build a brand is common practice and well within the advertising budget of Hasbro. How much did Marvel spend on it's early flops (remember the Incredible Hulk (2008) or the even worse one in 2003?)

Incredible Hulk was not a flop. It may have even broke even.

Movie Comparison: The Incredible Hulk (2008) vs. Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves (2023)

Domestic box office comparison between The Incredible Hulk (2008) and Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves (2023)

www.the-numbers.com